[Movie] Dungeon & Dragons: Honor Among Thieves

[Ghost of Cow]

As much as people gripe about rulesets, I always wondered why people even really bothered with the actual rules of D&D and didn't just play their own thing just using the base as inspiration.

[NineSpine]

But... thats the thing, you don't have to arbitrary limit that, the game does have rules for it

And why the pets would do that? if you complete ignore the rules and what spells and abilities do, i guess . Like, the spell precisely say "The knowledge and awareness of many beasts is limited by their intelligence", so, you can do much here, even the part of asking to do something is a "small favour". you can ask to fight and die for you, but its nonsense to believe it will actually do it, spells only do what they say they do, is not a mind control, it does not say it follows or obeys you. That is another spell, Dominate beast, and consume the caster resources, so, seems fine to me.

A summary of what you just said is "No matter what the player does or what the player rolls, just throttle it and arbitrarily limit it." That's the PROBLEM, not the SOLUTION.

Then you want a system with the bare minimum so you don't have to bother with many rules and mechanics, thats fine, for each his own, but i find no problem whatsoever in "many options", in the game i play or dm, the mechanics oof someone wanting to tame a pet and an actual beastmaster, "don't conflict"

There are less options with this many subclasses. That's the entire point. If I am serving sandwiches and I say "Just pick what you want" then I am providing MAXIMUM options. You are arguing that providing a constantly increasing list of specific sandwiches, but not allowing any customization of those sandwiches, is somehow going to result in more options than "just make the sandwich you want".

Even fi you have 300 subclasses, you still have 3-6 players at beast, this is a non issue. Simple is better for some, sure, but some people just get tired or bored of the same 2 picks, especially if you played much and for longer.

The whole point here is that if the class pool is smaller, the classes have to be significantly broader and deeper, which means two people playing the same one can be radically different.

What you are saying, its literally possible already, non necromancers can cast and learn necromancy spells, the necromancer subclass have more support for his own subclass, but other wizards can be necromancers and even combine with other subs options. Same for wanting a pet or being an alchemy, Nothing is reduced.

Wizard is the only caster that has that kind of freedom, and it makes Wizard a much more complex and interesting class that relies more on DM adjudication than other casters who are given fixed spell lists. This is because Wizard is the spiritual successor to the original magic-user class so it has to retain that kind of autonomy and freedom.

- - - Updated - - -

Well, as has been stated multiple times already in this thread...any of those bloated rules are entirely optional. If you don't want subclasses in your game...don't use them.

Subclasses are required to play 5e and I already described the problem whereby it feels bad for players for the DM to say "No, you can't play the thing you want".

- - - Updated - - -

I'd say simpler is better for some groups. my groups has been together for ages and they are all optimizers so they need a robust system to have fun; oh we roleplay a decent amount but the battles are the focus. But your average group and GM does not have the time and the investment in the rule system to play with a robust system and for them, the lighter the better.

5e has a very weak battle system as a result of its bloat though. It strongly encourages constant maximum damage output rather than anything approaching strategy or coordination or creativity. I was just talking to my wife about this earlier. She love barbarians. That is always her go-to in any game, ttrpg or otherwise. But she is really bored with how 5e combat basically makes her have to constantly attack and do nothing else because its just not worth doing other things.

A simpler system can give her the freedom to be creative in battle. The complexity is ultimately stifling.

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

Subclasses are required to play 5e and I already described the problem whereby it feels bad for players for the DM to say "No, you can't play the thing you want".

WotC is not going to stop publishing 5e supplements just because you have a hard time telling your players no. If you don't want certain material to be in your games... that's cool... nobody's forcing you to buy every single book... but it is on you to inform your players which materials you allow in your games.

A simpler system can give her the freedom to be creative in battle. The complexity is ultimately stifling.

Well, there are plenty of other systems out there for you both to try.

[Biomega]

As much as people gripe about rulesets, I always wondered why people even really bothered with the actual rules of D&D and didn't just play their own thing just using the base as inspiration.

My guess would be it's so, so, so, SO much more work.

[Rocksteady 87]

I really, really dislike this recent (relatively speaking) trend for "minimalistic" RPGs.

For me, it's just as much about the G as it is the RP. Give me something meaty to play with any day of the week. It's why I still prefer playing D&D 3.e/Pathfinder over 5e. The only thing they're good for is getting new people into the hobby, and that's pretty much it.

That said, I'm in total agreement about there being too many races in D&D. But this is a problem Wizards of the Coast introduced with D&D 3e (and don't get me started on LA and templates), so it's hardly something 5e is responsible for. Subclasses though? Bring them on. Though I'd much prefer them to be interesting in their own right, as opposed to just being slight variations of other options. If anything, I'd complain about subclasses not having enough meat to them compared to the base classes, and having to wait entirely too long for most of them to become interesting. Especially since 5e is ill-designed for higher level play to begin with (not that other editions were much better, with most being far worse; but a turd is a turd is a turd).

As for the people acting like house rules are some obscure, eldritch concept never before seen in D&D, just... what? Limiting what races players can pick is probably one of the oldest, most well-established and common house rules in the game's history, followed closely by class limitations. I've also never--not once--been in a D&D game that didn't use house rules to one degree or another. Even when me and my friends first started playing in the 80s, we were like "well that's a dumb rule" and came up with our own version that fit our playstyle better.

And if everyone is fighting at the table over something silly like a house rule, then there's way more problems with the people at the table than there is with the game.

[Nymrohd]

5e has a very weak battle system as a result of its bloat though. It strongly encourages constant maximum damage output rather than anything approaching strategy or coordination or creativity. I was just talking to my wife about this earlier. She love barbarians. That is always her go-to in any game, ttrpg or otherwise. But she is really bored with how 5e combat basically makes her have to constantly attack and do nothing else because its just not worth doing other things.

A simpler system can give her the freedom to be creative in battle. The complexity is ultimately stifling.

I mean 4E had a robust system supposedly made for miniature warfare in small scale and the answer always was max damage. 3.5, answer always was max damage. The action economy makes it clear that the only thing that matters in combat is to end it ASAP.

- - - Updated - - -

So looking at more interviews it seems they are going for some earnest storytelling. No fourth wall breaking, just an actual story set in a fantasy world with some light comedy. I fully expect Rodriguez and Pine to carry the movie though I am most looking forward to Grant's villain. Forgotten Realms is probably the WotC IP with the least character; not that it is a problem, it makes it easier to insert campaigns there. I would hope they have a story that makes some sense within the insanely vast and detailed lore of FR though. Imo it was not a good pick. Part of the charm of fantasy is the setting itself and FR can be very non-descript.

They are also going for a more kid friendly movie? by keeping it low on the sex. That's always an interesting conversation. I have a group that's been around for years so we let ourselves have fun on the table with whose character is the biggest slut but I think the consensus is to be careful with handling sex oin TTRPGs (and even more so with LARPs) because it can get very uncomfortable very quickly for some players. And with the leader being a bard (a bard played by Chris Pine!) they will definitely have to deal with the stereotypes.

[KainneAbsolute]

As much as people gripe about rulesets, I always wondered why people even really bothered with the actual rules of D&D and didn't just play their own thing just using the base as inspiration.

Manuals from 3.5 and previous editions incentivized creating rules, spells, classes, creatures, and worlds (in fact that's how some settings and other games were born). During the 3rd and 3.5 editions, the forums were full of worldbuilding and homebrew topics.

I didn't play the 4th edition, so I don't know how the forums worked out. Recently, I joined the RPG Reddit, and well...I am surprised how players don't like the idea of new ideas, creations, or rules by the DMs. There is a wave of people qualifying DnD as another wargame, not actually an RPG, because there aren't core role mechanics or rewards. However, the DM "cant create role-playing rewards" unless they adapt them from other RPGs.

I received the comment that "creating your own world and adventures is dumb because it is waste of time, considering there are official adventures". Then I found how topics where they hate RPG with metaplots, because that's so antiquated.

[Kyphael]

Hopefully this makes Blizzard introduce a Bard class. They are saps for pop culture, and if the movie is a hit, players might want it.

[Nymrohd]

Manuals from 3.5 and previous editions incentivized creating rules, spells, classes, creatures, and worlds (in fact that's how some settings and other games were born). During the 3rd and 3.5 editions, the forums were full of worldbuilding and homebrew topics.

I didn't play the 4th edition, so I don't know how the forums worked out. Recently, I joined the RPG Reddit, and well...I am surprised how players don't like the idea of new ideas, creations, or rules by the DMs. There is a wave of people qualifying DnD as another wargame, not actually an RPG, because there aren't core role mechanics or rewards. However, the DM "cant create role-playing rewards" unless they adapt them from other RPGs.

I received the comment that "creating your own world and adventures is dumb because it is waste of time, considering there are official adventures". Then I found how topics where they hate RPG with metaplots, because that's so antiquated.

Simulationists loved 3e. 3e felt custom made (it really wasn't) to get people to build entire worlds by making NPC and monster building very formulaic (though the methodology was abysmal). It was far less effective in actual play; it would start slowing down at about lvl 6 and slow to a crawl above lvl 12. But for people who did not actually PLAY the game but liked to talk about it, 3E was the best edition?

[Syegfryed]

A summary of what you just said is "No matter what the player does or what the player rolls, just throttle it and arbitrarily limit it." That's the PROBLEM, not the SOLUTION.

You mean, the rules to do things are just "abritrary limits" and are problems?

There are less options with this many subclasses. That's the entire point. If I am serving sandwiches and I say "Just pick what you want" then I am providing MAXIMUM options. You are arguing that providing a constantly increasing list of specific sandwiches, but not allowing any customization of those sandwiches, is somehow going to result in more options than "just make the sandwich you want".

I see no problem in you going to a restaurant and ordering from the Menu all the dishes, its going to be hard to ask then to change their recipes to fit your taste.

Even so, still is possible, you can customize your subclass with many feats, magic weapons spells, the customization exist, just not the way you would like to.

The whole point here is that if the class pool is smaller, the classes have to be significantly broader and deeper, which means two people playing the same one can be radically different.

And if you have many options there is no reason to play the same option? with many options you can play different subclasses? thats just trading six for half a dozen

Wizard is the only caster that has that kind of freedom, and it makes Wizard a much more complex and interesting class that relies more on DM adjudication than other casters who are given fixed spell lists. This is because Wizard is the spiritual successor to the original magic-user class so it has to retain that kind of autonomy and freedom.

Humm not rly, all the classes can do that, if its in the logic limits

a warlock or a cleric can play the resident necromancer, hell even a druid can with the spores subclass.

Subclasses are required to play 5e and I already described the problem whereby it feels bad for players for the DM to say "No, you can't play the thing you want".

Thats because it will be shite to be said you ahve to play only the 4 options the dm chose because he just want it that way though, might as well just change the system.

5e has a very weak battle system as a result of its bloat though. It strongly encourages constant maximum damage output rather than anything approaching strategy or coordination or creativity. I was just talking to my wife about this earlier. She love barbarians. That is always her go-to in any game, ttrpg or otherwise. But she is really bored with how 5e combat basically makes her have to constantly attack and do nothing else because its just not worth doing other things.

A simpler system can give her the freedom to be creative in battle. The complexity is ultimately stifling.

We might be playing different games then, barbarian can knock people prone, shove, push use thei features, you can use the terrain, lots of stuff to do, thing is, barbarians in general are just too straight foward anyway., i hardly see how cutting off barb subclasses would improve that.

- - - Updated - - -

That said, I'm in total agreement about there being too many races in D&D. But this is a problem Wizards of the Coast introduced with D&D 3e (and don't get me started on LA and templates), so it's hardly something 5e is responsible for. Subclasses though? Bring them on.

i don't get it, why the races is somehow different? i see then as another tool to make a character, especially when they come with some fancy racials to add into the strategy.

The spelljammer races as example, looking neat as fuck, the ooze race would fit some rly nice builds

[NineSpine]

You mean, the rules to do things are just "abritrary limits" and are problems?


I see no problem in you going to a restaurant and ordering from the Menu all the dishes, its going to be hard to ask then to change their recipes to fit your taste.

Even so, still is possible, you can customize your subclass with many feats, magic weapons spells, the customization exist, just not the way you would like to.



And if you have many options there is no reason to play the same option? with many options you can play different subclasses? thats just trading six for half a dozen



Humm not rly, all the classes can do that, if its in the logic limits

a warlock or a cleric can play the resident necromancer, hell even a druid can with the spores subclass.

Thats because it will be shite to be said you ahve to play only the 4 options the dm chose because he just want it that way though, might as well just change the system.



We might be playing different games then, barbarian can knock people prone, shove, push use thei features, you can use the terrain, lots of stuff to do, thing is, barbarians in general are just too straight foward anyway., i hardly see how cutting off barb subclasses would improve that.

- - - Updated - - -



i don't get it, why the races is somehow different? i see then as another tool to make a character, especially when they come with some fancy racials to add into the strategy.

The spelljammer races as example, looking neat as fuck, the ooze race would fit some rly nice builds

It’s pretty clear at this point that you are just not getting it and won’t. If I say subclass puts you in narrow lanes and your response is that the player can pick a different subclass, you just don’t want to engage with what I am saying at all.

The restaurant comparison is the best example of this. You completely sidestepped by metaphor by talking about ordering off menu, rather than engaging with the point I made.

[Mace]

Says every closeted racist ever before saying something racist. The most hilarious thing is, you're racist against the dragon.

Wait, I thought he was being sarcastic, taking the piss out of the over woke crazies - you mean he was being serious?

[Daedius]

So much Geekism. I just want to see an Acid spewing dragon...

[MCMLXXXII]

Wait, I thought he was being sarcastic, taking the piss out of the over woke crazies - you mean he was being serious?

He was being sarcastic. Kyphael's sarcasm radar is in maintenance I guess.

[Shadowferal]

Evil Midnight Bomber is pretty obvious, so he tends to forgo the /s tag.

[Svifnymr]

As much as people gripe about rulesets, I always wondered why people even really bothered with the actual rules of D&D and didn't just play their own thing just using the base as inspiration.

A common ruleset is good for playing in gameshops and other places where you're not playing with established folks you've gamed with before. You don't have to worry about balance or whatever (well, in theory) because the game does that. It is fully expected and encouraged to customize things when you're with a group to make it better for you, but you still work from a common baseline rather than inventing an entire system.

There are plenty of rules heavier games than D&D, and plenty of rule lighter games. Some games, the GM is basically deciding everything, so you don't even need rules really.

- - - Updated - - -

I like Tasha's just for the optional rulesets/class features that fixed a lot of the deficiencies of the core 5e classes. The biggest thing that comes to mind are non-standard or uncommonly chosen subclasses, like College of Swords bards, etc. Haven't really cared about it outside of that.

Yeah, like I said, it felt more like the original Unearthed Arcana, a bunch of just stuff tossed in randomly to accentuate and plug holes, rather than a cohesive expansion, to me. It just so happens that Tasha/ flavor text was not to my liking I suppose. With things like this, or the adventure collections like Candlekeep, quality throughout is pretty random at times so it can leave a bad taste in my mouth.

- - - Updated - - -

So much Geekism. I just want to see an Acid spewing dragon...

and I just want the owlbear. Hopefully they can deliver a cohesive plot that is fun and enjoyable.

It's amusing that there will probably be an RPG book for the movie, but it won't actually come out anywhere near the movie I'm sure.

[Mace]

He was being sarcastic. Kyphael's sarcasm radar is in maintenance I guess.

Thanks.. I thought my radar had gone off for a sec

[mst3kfan]

I love Chris Pine so I'm looking forward to him leading the group. As long as they strike the right balance of humor, and the "questing" fantasy I think it will be good. Even if it isn't "good" it will more than likely still be enjoyable to watch.

[NineSpine]

WotC is not going to stop publishing 5e supplements just because you have a hard time telling your players no. If you don't want certain material to be in your games... that's cool... nobody's forcing you to buy every single book... but it is on you to inform your players which materials you allow in your games.

Well, there are plenty of other systems out there for you both to try.

The problem is that the subclass system makes saying no to subclasses from supplementary material extremely problematic, because it means cutting off genuine options rather than saying "We can explore that through an existing subclass". This is the problem with having 500 narrow lanes. Getting rid of 450 of the lanes doesn't necessarily expand the remaining 50 if they are constructed in such a way to accommodate the other 450. You only get wider lanes if you design for it in the first place.

Nobody said WoTC should stop publishing material. That's absurd. However, they did start with a light touch and explicitly said they wanted to avoid the bloat previous editions had. Sure enough, this eventually went out the window and the schedule ramped up considerably. Furthermore, supplementary material does not have to be constructed the way they do it. It can take the form of more magic items, more optional systems, more spells, more monsters, etc.. The lack of magic items in particular is clearly caused by the class/subclass bloat. It's very hard to design new items when you have larded up the class system itself with so many innate abilities.

There is nothing that 13 classes and 40,000 subclasses can do that 4 classes and an open ended system can't do. There is a value to a class system, but 5e has taken it way too far and made a situation where everyone is choked down to a very narrow lane to play in.

- - - Updated - - -

I mean 4E had a robust system supposedly made for miniature warfare in small scale and the answer always was max damage. 3.5, answer always was max damage. The action economy makes it clear that the only thing that matters in combat is to end it ASAP.

And I would argue that that is a bad system for roleplaying and a bad system for miniature warfare combat. It doesn't make either aspect better. The answer was not always max damage in earlier editions.

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

Evil Midnight Bomber is pretty obvious, so he tends to forgo the /s tag.

I feeel like putting a /s tag on things is the equivalnet of having to explain a joke.